Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[dysert]

No. Rather, the question exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how gradual change over time works.

The question "which non-dog gave birth to a dog?" is the equivalent of "which non-spanish spaking mother gave birth to a spanish speaking child?".

I don't think it's hard to understand how gradual change over time works. A bird can, over time, develop a different beak. A bear can, over time, develop a different color coat. But you and I both agree that a dog, after many thousands of years, will still give birth to a dog. Well, since dog's weren't always around, what organism existed one generation before the dog? ("I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.)

 

[Astrophile]

And in that "less than six years later," how much damage was done as far as duping the general public into believing biological evolution had been reinforced with this "new discovery"?

Very little, I suspect. Did anybody ever teach you that 'Nebraska man' and 'Piltdown man' were ape-men or human ancestors? I was certainly never taught that, and I was in my second year at primary school when Piltdown man was exposed as a fake. (As if it matters, I remember that a lot of my time at primary school was taken up by religious teaching.)

Also, I own a pro-evolutionary book that was published in 1937, and an article by A.S. Keith in the 1929 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and they show that there was much public opposition to evolutionary ideas, even though at that time Piltdown man was thought to be genuine. Raymond Dart's discovery of Australopithecus in 1924 was met with the same public opposition and disbelief. In the light of these facts, what makes you think that the general public had been 'duped' into believing in biological evolution?

I like how you worded it:

"Officially announced in April 1922."

"Retracted in December 1927."

In other words, all over Page One in 1922, retracted with a sentence or two on Page Four in 1927.

And, no less, when the general public was more occupied with Christmas, than reading about some biological mistake.

Let me cite the references, so that you can see the dates and the page numbers.
Anonymous, 1922. "Nebraska's 'Ape-man of the western world'," The New York Times, Sept. 17, sect. 7, p. 1.
Anonymous, 1928a. "Nebraska ape tooth proved a wild pig's", The New York Times, Feb. 20, p. 1.
Anonymous, 1928b. "Peccavis and peccaries", The New York Times, Feb. 21, p. 24.
Anonymous, 1928c. "Hesperopithecus dethroned", The Times (London), Feb. 21, p. 16.
Anonymous, 1928d. "Hesperopithecus". The Times, London, Feb. 25, p. 13.
Forestier, A., 1922. "The earliest man tracked by a tooth: An 'astounding discovery' of human remains in Pliocene strata (A reconstruction drawing by A. Forestier)", The Illustrated London News, June 24, pp. 942-943.
Gregory, W.K., 1927. "Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape or a man", Science, n.s. 66, pp.579-581.
Osborn, H.F., 1922b. 'Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America', American Museum Novitates, 37, 1-5.
Osborn, 1922c. Hesperopithecus, the first anthropid primate found in America', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 8, 245-6.
Osborn, 1922d. Hesperopithecus, the anthropid primate of western Nebraska', Nature, 110, 281-3.

Notice that the retraction in February 1928 (not at Christmas time) was on page 1 of the New York Times, and that Gregory's retraction in Science took up three pages.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Piltdown hoaxer was Charles Dawson, who was a solicitor by profession, not a scientist. The scientists were his dupes. You should read 'Piltdown Man' by Miles Russell and 'Unravelling Piltdown' by John Evangelist Walsh.

Sorry.

This sounds like a coverup to me.

It's nothing more than making Charles Dawson take the fall for it.

But I'll admit: I haven't read those books you mentioned.

Yes. Now will you answer my question, please.

In a minute.

If you mean, should the general public have accepted that Pluto was a planet between 1930 and 2006, then the answer is 'Yes'. If you are asking what I thought about Pluto between the late 1950s and 2006, that's a more difficult question. I suppose that for most of that time I regarded Pluto as a planet, faute de mieux, because there was nothing else to call it. After 1992, when astronomers started discovering other trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), I began to think that Pluto itself was a TNO, the largest of its kind, but still a TNO. Where one drew the line between a true planet and a large trans-Neptunian object was difficult to say; it depended on how one defined a planet.
Now that I've answered your questions, are you willing to answer my question about the Shroud of Turin?

This is why I asked for just a YES or NO.

Now I have to backtrack and add to my original question.

A ploy I find aggravating when trying to get a simple answer from educatees.

What I meant was:

Should the general public have accepted that Pluto was our ninth planet from 1930-2006?

And for the record, Pluto's demotion is still being contested.

Now, as to your question, this shroud of Turin thing is nothing more than a Satanic ploy to make Jesus look like a long-haired, hippie ... um ... alternate lifestylist.

Just like in the pictures of Him that hang on people's walls.

Every time someone hangs one up, Satan probably laughs at the Second Commandment; and now, at our recent Supreme Court decision.

 

[AV1611VET]

Notice that the retraction in February 1928 (not at Christmas time) was on page 1 of the New York Times, and that Gregory's retraction in Science took up three pages.

Hmmm ... good point.

How thoughtless of me.

I should have realized that every plebeian in America reads the New York Times.

 

[Strathos]

Because a few reactionary preachers a hundred years or so ago got the idea that there was a conflict so they indoctrinated multiple generations with YEC beliefs and claims that evolution is part of some Satanic conspiracy.

 

[The Cadet]

Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates.

You're right. And you are welcome to peruse PubMed for the massive extent of literature which establishes with double-blind randomized control studies how and why these treatments work. We don't just know that these treatments correlated with massively decreased cancer rates; we know exactly how and why they do so, and we have the evidence to show causation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think it's hard to understand how gradual change over time works. A bird can, over time, develop a different beak. A bear can, over time, develop a different color coat. But you and I both agree that a dog, after many thousands of years, will still give birth to a dog. Well, since dog's weren't always around, what organism existed one generation before the dog? ("I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.)

You don't think it's hard to understand gradual change, yet you make the exact same mistake again.

Speciation always results in sub-species.
A dog is a sub-species of canines.
A canine is a sub-species of mammals.
Etc.

Speciation is not something that happens overnight from one generation to the next. Our classification of species is but a snapshot of the current state of living things.

All decendents of humans will belong to the classification of "human" - even after speciation into subspecies happens.

Tetrapods are tetrapods
Mammals are mammals and tetrapods.
Primates are primates and mammals and tetrapods.
Humans are humans and primates and mammals and tetrapods.
insert-future-human-subspecies are insert-future-human-subspecies and humans and primates and mammals and tetrapods.



Now, let's take your question and apply it to languages, please try to answer it:

Well, since spanish wasn't always around, what language existed one generation before spanish?

 

[dysert]

You don't think it's hard to understand gradual change, yet you make the exact same mistake again.

Speciation always results in sub-species.
A dog is a sub-species of canines.
A canine is a sub-species of mammals.
Etc.

Since we're having trouble getting to an answer for "dog", would you prefer that I ask what organism existed one generation before the first mammal? Seems to me that there has to be a first insert organism here. So the question is, what organism existed one generation before the first insert organism here?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since we're having trouble getting to an answer for "dog", would you prefer that I ask what organism existed one generation before the first mammal? Seems to me that there has to be a first insert organism here. So the question is, what organism existed one generation before the first insert organism here?

Why do you ignore the rest of my post, where I explained these things?

Again, try to answer this question... the answer will reveal why your question is invalid:

What language existed one generation before the first spanish speaking individual?
What language was spoken by the parents of the "first" spanish speaking individual?

I have stated 6 times already that every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

Off spring is 99.9999% (=arbitrary number to make the point clear) the same as its parents.
The key lies in that 0.0001% - which represents the set of mutations that accumulate through the generations. Every new born has its own set of mutations. It's called "the mutation rate".

The second generation is 99.998% similar to generation 0 (=the "reference" generation).
Generation 3 is 99.9997% similar.
Generation 4 is 99.9996% similar.
Generation 5 is 99.9995% similar.
Generation 6 is 99.9994% similar.
.....
Generation 1000 is 99.8000% similar.

You don't see any visible difference between generation X and X+1.

But you DO see a visible difference between generation X and X+1000

Just like you don't hear a difference between generation X and X+1 in language.
But hundreds of generations later, there is a clear difference.

Go back in time and 300 years and read some english text. One can still call it "english", but already it sounds quite different. Grammar is different. Vocabulary is different. Certain words are unkown, other words aren't invented yet.

Go back another 500 years. Can you still call it "english"? Hardly.
Go back another 500 years. Can you now still call it "english"?
Another 500 years: how about now?

Now, did any of the people that lived through those 2000 years speak another language then their children? Or grandchildren?

Yet, today they speak english, while nothing that can be called "english" existed 2000 years ago.

Is it starting to sink in now, what it means to have gradual change?

 

[dysert]

Why do you ignore the rest of my post, where I explained these things?

Again, try to answer this question... the answer will reveal why your question is invalid:

What language existed one generation before the first spanish speaking individual?
What language was spoken by the parents of the "first" spanish speaking individual?

I have stated 6 times already that every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

Off spring is 99.9999% (=arbitrary number to make the point clear) the same as its parents.
The key lies in that 0.0001% - which represents the set of mutations that accumulate through the generations. Every new born has its own set of mutations. It's called "the mutation rate".

The second generation is 99.998% similar to generation 0 (=the "reference" generation).
Generation 3 is 99.9997% similar.
Generation 4 is 99.9996% similar.
Generation 5 is 99.9995% similar.
Generation 6 is 99.9994% similar.
.....
Generation 1000 is 99.8000% similar.

You don't see any visible difference between generation X and X+1.

But you DO see a visible difference between generation X and X+1000

Just like you don't hear a difference between generation X and X+1 in language.
But hundreds of generations later, there is a clear difference.

Go back in time and 300 years and read some english text. One can still call it "english", but already it sounds quite different. Grammar is different. Vocabulary is different. Certain words are unkown, other words aren't invented yet.

Go back another 500 years. Can you still call it "english"? Hardly.
Go back another 500 years. Can you now still call it "english"?
Another 500 years: how about now?

Now, did any of the people that lived through those 2000 years speak another language then their children? Or grandchildren?

Yet, today they speak english, while nothing that can be called "english" existed 2000 years ago.

Is it starting to sink in now, what it means to have gradual change?

Ok. I think it's starting to sink in now. Let me reflect it back to make sure I've got it. The only difference is that I'll be going back in time -- shouldn't matter, right?

I have a dog.

Let's call my dog the "reference" generation. Her parents (generation -1) are 99.998% similar to her. Her grandparents (generation -2) are 99.9997% similar. Generation -1000 is 99.8000% similar. Do I have it right?

Assuming I'm on the right track, we can only go back in time so far until we run out of generations (sometime after the Big Bang, when all we have is rocks and stuff). For discussion purposes, let's say we can go back to generation -100000. What would you call the organism at generation -100001?

 

[DogmaHunter]

View attachment 162132
Ok. I think it's starting to sink in now. Let me reflect it back to make sure I've got it. The only difference is that I'll be going back in time -- shouldn't matter, right?

I have a dog. View attachment 162132Let's call my dog the "reference" generation. Her parents (generation -1) are 99.998% similar to her. Her grandparents (generation -2) are 99.9997% similar. Generation -1000 is 99.8000% similar. Do I have it right?

Assuming I'm on the right track, we can only go back in time so far until we run out of generations (sometime after the Big Bang, when all we have is rocks and stuff). For discussion purposes, let's say we can go back to generation -100000. What would you call the organism at generation -100001?

Are you playing dumb on purpose?

Sorry, I can no longer take you seriously. Especially not after saying things like "sometime after the Big Bang, when all we have is rocks and stuff"

I've explained how it works. I can't explain it any clearer then that.

Again: what language did the mother of "the first" spanish speaking individual speak?
Who was the "first" english speaking person?
And what language did his/her parents speak?

Now apply the same logic to your dog question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

double-blind randomized control studies how and why these treatments work.

Medicine has always been established on razzle-dazzle, when they are not dealing with injury. The studies show that there is very little man does to actually add years to the lives of people with disease. If people live longer it is because they are healthy enough they can stay away from the doctors. They eat right, exercise and control their stress. Or they pray, fast and live in the word of God. All your rhetoric is not going to change any of that. If you want to live a long life then you have to do what the people are doing that live long lives. If you want to be healthy you got to do what healthy people are doing.

Sometimes I think the heathen have more faith then Christians. They think that they can live for the devil and somehow get away with it and not have to deal with the consequences.

 

[lasthero]

The studies show that there is very littleman does to actually add years tothe lives of people with disease.

What studies?

 

[joshua 1 9]

What studies?

The studies conducted by Dr Ornish that have to do with heart disease and the leading causes of death in America. There is no evidence that surgery and drugs add years to the patients lives. Even some studies show that the benefit from some surgery is little more than a placebo effect. Most of the information I have comes from Dr Ornish and the work he has done or supervises as a director.

 

[lasthero]

The studies conducted by Dr Ornish that have to do with heart disease and the leading causes of death in America.

Link?

There is no evidence that surgery and drugs add years to the patients lives.

Really?

So, when I was having bleeding problems a few weeks ago and I had extreme trouble breathing and I couldn't move my right arm...it was just coincidence that I took the pills they told me take, I felt better?

And the lady at my church who had cancer and showed all the signs of cancer and was feeling extremely ill, it was just coincidence that, after she went through the treatment, she stoppped showing the signs of cancer?

Even some studies show that the benefit from some surgery is little more than a placebo effect.

Such as?

 

[bhsmte]

Medicine has always been established on razzle-dazzle, when they are not dealing with injury. The studies show that there is very little man does to actually add years to the lives of people with disease. If people live longer it is because they are healthy enough they can stay away from the doctors. They eat right, exercise and control their stress. Or they pray, fast and live in the word of God. All your rhetoric is not going to change any of that. If you want to live a long life then you have to do what the people are doing that live long lives. If you want to be healthy you got to do what healthy people are doing.

Sometimes I think the heathen have more faith then Christians. They think that they can live for the devil and somehow get away with it and not have to deal with the consequences.

Word salad.

 

[bhsmte]

The studies conducted by Dr Ornish that have to do with heart disease and the leading causes of death in America. There is no evidence that surgery and drugs add years to the patients lives. Even some studies show that the benefit from some surgery is little more than a placebo effect. Most of the information I have comes from Dr Ornish and the work he has done or supervises as a director.

Lets take people who are diagnosed with either breast cancer or prostate cancer and they have the cancer surgically removed and they go on to live for 20 plus years post surgery.

Are you actually claiming, that the surgery to remove the cancer did not prolong their life?

 

[hgkeller771]

If I were an all powerful being who wanted to create something as big and beautiful as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE... I would NEVER do it all by hand. I'd be too smart for that. First, I'd create the Laws of Physics, chemistry, etc. Then I would design a mechanism by which life of all forms can flourish.... IE... Evolution.

To me, Evolution is proof of creationism. It is proof that there is an Omniscient, Omnipotent being out there.

Most people who don't believe in evolution say "it's just a theory, it hasn't been proven" Which is a blatant misunderstanding of the word "theory". In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven, but not quantified (As opposed to a Law which is always true in every instance and can be calculated). It happens folks. No amount of whining and moaning can un-prove or undo evolution. So instead of believing that it is some affront to God, why not realize that Evolution is actually God's work?

We've seen evolution in our lifetimes. On microbial scale, we see things like algae being coaxed into evolving into fuel producing species. As humans, we've had a hand in the evolution of Dogs. We chose the ones that are loyal and that look nice, and the rest were routinely killed off. Even an astute person can see how traits are passed down from human parent to human child. We see hundreds or thousands of versions of the same plants and animals in different regions of the world.

So lets look at this differently.

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!

Exactly what "David's Gifts" is about. Written in 2012 as "David's Gift", published in 2013 and again in 2014 as "David's Gifts" it describes the theoretical process whereby God designed and programmed the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule has as much information in it as a whole library full of books, but it also has the ability to reprogram itself. In the DNA He provided for the jump from single cell plants and animals to multicell, from no nervous system to light detection and then on to a central nervous system and from crawlers to walkers, then the species development by unraveling the DNA instructions throughout time. What he created in an instant would be millions of years to humans. Time means nothing to God. His process of creation would not have been described in the Bible whose writers would not have understood. To them the earth was flat and only had three dimensions. For those looking for an understanding of God and how the earth and humans came to be, the simplest explanation is that God did it and He did it in the only way possible, through the programming of the DNA molecule.

 

[JacksBratt]

What God does and says, and what his imperfect followers and believers say and write down are two different things.

That would kind of negate this scripture, now, wouldn't it.

2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think it's hard to understand how gradual change over time works. A bird can, over time, develop a different beak. A bear can, over time, develop a different color coat. But you and I both agree that a dog, after many thousands of years, will still give birth to a dog. Well, since dog's weren't always around, what organism existed one generation before the dog? ("I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.)

Chihuahuas weren't always around, so what organism existed one generation before the Chihuahua?

Just like dogs, other species branch out and produce new diversity, but stay on that same branch. At one time there was a single species of ape. As that species diverged there were new species of ape, but they were still apes, including humans. At one time there was a single species of primate. As that single species diverged and varied, there were new species of primates, but they remained primates, including humans. See a pattern forming?